Posts Tagged ‘Individual and group rights’

Right to Bear Arms: The Legal Question

November 17, 2013

I’m not trying to be argumentative, just curious. The current Court has struck down most recent attempts of states and municipalities to regulate arms. The NRA wages legal and electoral campaigns against anyone who breathes a hint to restrain a “right to bear arms“. The U.S. Congress, as well as the President, refuses to consider any restrictions.


The Supreme Court in the past few decades, has trashed the Constitution and allowed lots of infringing against the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Finally Illinois forced the issue with an obvious hit against the collectivist misinterpretation, and ruled that it was an individual right, not a state militia right.

[Cue the snicker sound track here.] After all, if the right to bear arms is a right of governments and not a right for individuals, then the Second Amendment really means, according to this insanity:

Does it say this?

2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the [government???] to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[Cue riotous laughter at that…].

So to protect the “security” of a

Dred Scott, whose famous case to gain his free...

Dred Scott, whose famous case to gain his freedom began as a lawsuit filed in St. Louis in 1846 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“free” state, the right of the government to bear arms shall not be infringed. Under this misinterpretation, the Second Amendment would presumably include the right to “bear” nuclear weapons.

So, are Steve and I permitted to own (keep) and use (bear) nuclear weapons (again, sorry, Norm, you were born on the wrong side of the pond)? If not, why not? That is, if I can keep and bear an AK-47 or AR-15 why not a thermonuclear device?

—-
There are MUCH WORSE people than you or Steve that already own (as in possess the use of) nuclear weapons.

#1. For example, one person who could throw nuclear weapons at somebody right now include one who arranged a massacre in a theater in which 130 innocent people died:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20067384
…But some 130 hostages died – most not at the hands of the gunmen and women, but apparently because of the effects of the gas….

#2. Another group killed an estimated 5,000 with over 10,000 hurt critically, all in cold blood to stop a peaceful protest.. The troops they sent in were ordered to shoot anybody that got in the way; they were brought from distant bases (presumably so that they would not include too many who would worry about relatives being among the victims:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

#3. Another one has arrogated to himself the illegal and unconstitutional “authority” to order secret kills on anybody he wants to anywhere in the world and has done it with full public knowledge. He (and his subordinates in command) continue their and unconstitutional and interventionist wars in five foreign countries.

For survivors, he has put command-and-control death panels in their future. Special treatment for special friends.

Rational people would demand all means possible to defend themselves against these obvious pathological maniacs, ruthless killers. And the list above is of the ones currently in possession of the worst nuclear weapons in the world. It does not include criminal dictators and rulers from the past or the future.

I’m serious. I admit that a reasonable person would not want Jason to have a tight rubber band, much less a nuke, but seriously should that be a limitation (no matter how logical and reasonable)? Instead is there case law which delineates what is protected by the 2nd amendment and not? Perhaps case law defines “arms”, which means that there would be a line in the sand; what is that line? I.e., what is protected and what is not?

—-
Case law is worse than useless when it numbs the mind of erudite attorneys at law and of citizens who accept it. Case law changes on the whim of those who make it, including 100s of reversals by the most respected Court in the world, the U.S. Supreme Court. Their ruling on the Republicans’ Civil RIghts Act in the 1960s reversed the Dred Scott case, for which you cannot find one little phrase of justification in even the slaver-protecting Constitution. (Justification was provided by the horror they felt at the prospect of blacks being able to carry arms, because if they are free men they carry arms).

2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


And some people out there in the cackling industry actually try to pretend it means that governments have the right to arm themselves!

Imagine that! Next thing they’ll pass a law that says chickens shall lay eggs and water shall flow downhill!

At least those amendments and laws would make lots more sense than the sewage pouring forth from looters’ governments today!

//

//

There is a BIG difference between “right to vote” and the “right to bear arms”

September 15, 2013
Patrick Henry, portrait by George Bagby Matthe...

Patrick Henry, portrait by George Bagby Matthews c. 1891 after an original by Thomas Sully (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The “right to vote” is only a corollary of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government. In fact, voter requirements are necessary to protect that right, and that includes taking reasonable measures to prevent a person from voting twice, making sure the person is eligible according to age, citizenship, and so on. If you cannot trust that these reasonable measures are taken, then you cannot trust that your vote counts as such.

The “Blessings of Liberty” were mentioned in the Preamble to the US Constitution as one of the purposes of said Constitution, but Patrick Henry and some of the other more astute among them did not regard them as enough, which is why they demanded the Bill of Rights, which explicitly declare a list of what they thought of as the most sacred natural individual rights.

The “right to vote” is is not a “right” in the sense of an individual’s liberty. You can respect all the natural rights of an individual –the right to the free exercise of one’s religion, the right to free speech, the right to free press, the right to peaceably assemble, to petition the government for a redress of grievances, the right to keep and bear arms, to BE secure (not “feel” secure) in their persons, papers, and property, and so on.

Those are an individual’s rights. The individual’s rights are a law higher than any particular government or tribe or nation, or any laws. The “rule of law” is the idea that any government, or the people entrusted with governing, should be subject to the same laws as everyone else.

The right of speech is absolute. If the SCOTUS had respected the right to bear arms with the same attitude they brought to the right of free speech, they would never approve “reasonable” restrictions on it.

What would be a “reasonable” restriction on the right of free speech? There is none.

But even there, we see the addiction of people in government (an institution that has a monopoly on the legal application of force). The laws that criminalize thought, also known as “hate speech” laws, are a case in point. Tax laws that make special rules and set up special privileges and restrictions and provide concessions of speech, these are another example. Why should a charity have a censorship muzzle, why should any group of private citizens (unions, corporations, hobby and professional associations) have any restrictions at all on their individual rights?

Jesus Christ’s lesson to his disciples, then and now, were in what he said about the tax collectors of the day. His apostles conceded that the tax collectors’ own children did not pay taxes, so he said, “Then are the children free”. He told his disciples to pay the tax, not because of some Romans 13 principle (–ARE YOU LISTENING, PREACHERS?–), but “lest we offend them” (Matthew 17).

Taxpayers pay for elections. They are not free.

People who do not help pay for their vote do not have the same stake in protecting individual rights as to those who have something to lose. They also do not have the same stake in the rule of law.

In the long run, historically, it is better materially to be beholden to a private business in a free market economy, than to be beholden to a government. Over the long run, if it did not buy loyalty, government would not protect the poor from poverty at all, or from anything else.

For example, when caring for the poor came in conflict with caring for the party hierarchies, it is not hard to guess who gets the care priorities, with all the rationalizations and justifications. Instead of going to the one who pays for it, it goes to the one that I told you to give it to. Which way is more “just”?

Again, a good guideline is always the Golden Rule, in dealings both with individuals, and it also works among nations.

Why the right to defend yourself includes defense against your government

June 10, 2013

Make no mistake: The INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms is not just a constitutional right, it is a NATURAL individual right that SOME of the Founders demanded be recognized along with the other NATURAL rights recognized in the Bill of Rights as a condition for ratification.

In other words, U.S. citizens to not get their right to bear arms from any constitution. They get it as a natural birth-right along with all the other individual human beings in the world, every one of them. Jews, Arabs, Gypsies, Armenians, handicapped, women, short men, tall men, ugly men and handsome, Cambodians, Chinese, ALL of us.

If a heavily armed local population is a danger to so-called “community safety”, then the INDIVIDUALS that have to live in such a population has an even stronger case for their individual right to bear arms and protect themselves, including, if necessary, forming militia to defend themselves against the Great Enlightened Overlords of the Great Enlightened United Nations and other Dictators’ Clubs who believe that they have to protect the community from itself.

The “leading democratic states” are exposing themselves today as ENEMIES of human rights protections and enemies of the “peaceful resolution” of conflicts. They pretend to work for the people while they are looting them by the force the guns of the armies of the law, confiscating the fruits of the labor of the people. If you don’t like it and speak out you will go to prison.

Bush, Obama, pick your bad guy. Here in the supposedly most “enlightened” ahem, “democratic state”, The USA, let’s see how safe we are. Let me count the ways in which we can feel safe without the means to defend ourselves against crime and tyranny:

The Patriot Act,

self-written search warrants,

warrantless seizures,

NDAA,

CISPA,

PIPA,

SOPA,

indefinite detention without charges,

suspension of habeas corpus,

whimsical kill lists,

presidential say-so kill orders,

DOJ propaganda telling law enforcement officers across the country to watch out for returning veterans, and Ron Paul supporters and constitutionalists,

enemies lists of conservatives getting harassment from IRS and federal gun-slinging agencies,

warnings against listening to anybody speaking against government,

one singer sentenced by a judge to psychiatry for speaking against music industry tycoons,

Bush caught on video saying he “will not tolerate” conspiracy theories,

MK Ultra,

Carnivore,

Echelon,

Total Information Awareness,

deliberate syphilis infections in Memphis and Guatemala,

“free speech zones” (meaning there are “no free speech zones”),

campaigns against “hate speech” (meaning speech they hate),

laws against speech by content (censorship),

laws against freely speaking about the health benefits of herbs, vitamins, supplements, alternative medicine,

historical massacres of Indians,

persecution of Mormons,

raids on peaceful small religious communities (East Texas) with “social workers” told to get children to denounce their parents,

Ruby Ridge,

Japanese detention camps,

Cross-burning and Jim Crow laws,

Massacre in middle Texas with tanks belching fire,

magic bullets and assassinations,

Watergate,

Whitewater,

Whitewater pardons,

Jim McDougal died after being denied his medicine,

Vince Foster,

Travelgate,

Filegate,

Benghazi denial of security requests, orders to stand down, coverup,

Fast and Furious,

Miss Arkansas announced fear for her life,

Unprosecuted Juanita Broaddrick rapes,

Unprosecuted rape denunciations by Miss Arkansas (denouncing her fear for her life causing her to previously say it was constitutional,

Paula Jones harrassment,

Abuses of the IRS, harassment of organizations of many different political philosophies,

Abuses by the IRS against common citizens,

IRS code passed by CONGRESS that presumes one is guilty if accused unless the accused can prove his innocence,

Massive privacy intrusions into email, web posts, voice calls, into Americans and others everywhere,

United States President George W. Bush shakes ...

United States President George W. Bush shakes hands with U.S. Senator Arlen Specter after signing H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 in the East Room of the White House (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Hundreds of federal agencies with armed agents,

Dred Scot,

A very massively historical bloody “civil war”,

Demonstrators against the draft shot down in cold blood on the orders of Abraham Lincoln,

Riots and looting history,

Drones,

Attacks against the right of self-defense with gun laws,
Goetz,

Attacks against children in “gun-free” zones..

Are we safe yet?

Ben Swann Full Disclosure

June 6, 2013

http://benswann.com/

Ben Swann is known for his really great program, Reality Check, that exposes dangers to individual liberties in the United States. His credibility, already much established, is sure to propel his “Liberty is Rising Truth in Media” project very quickly to prominence.

This and Brian Wilson’s Libertas Media Project are signs that a discussion is afoot and about to affect events that matter to the issues that truly matter for individual rights and awareness of personal freedoms.

http://www.libertasmediaproject.com/welcome.html